This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: -Wextra-strict-aliasing proposal

From: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
To: stl at caltech dot edu
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:41:23 -0800
Subject: Re: -Wextra-strict-aliasing proposal
References: <20040303052445.B8502109A86@earth-ox.its.caltech.edu>

Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:

As a normal user, I would argue that -Wextra-X is a bad name because it
suggests that it is part of -Wextra (the option formerly known as -W).

I concede that might be a problem, but I've had trouble coming up with a name that I am happy with. The fact that "strict aliasing" is already a phrase makes it hard to extend it further.

I propose -Wvery-strict-aliasing.

This implies to me that we are doing a different kind of strict aliasing, which is more strict, which isn't really true.

A suggestion I got in private mail was -Wstrict-aliasing=2 There is precedent of sorts with the -Wformat=2 option. This has the advantage that it sorts well, since it will come immediately after the option it is related to. I am willing to change the patch to use this name if people think it is a good idea. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

References:
- RE: -Wextra-strict-aliasing proposal
  - From: Stephan T. Lavavej

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]